Syria: U.s. Urges Iraq Neighbor To `Ponder The Implications'

April 15, 2003|By DAVID LIGHTMAN; Washington Bureau Chief

WASHINGTON — The idea that Syria could be the next target of President Bush's new, aggressive -- and to many imperialist -- foreign policy stirred fierce debate Monday about whether the U.S. is moving to create a fresh but more fragile world order.

Top administration officials continued into a second day of warnings, some veiled and some more direct, that Syria had better not be developing its own weapons of mass destruction or providing a haven for fleeing Iraqi officials.

``Syria is a nation that has long been on the list of terrorist nations. They should not do that, they should not be that way. ... That's a message the United States will not be shy about saying to Syria or other nations,'' said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who referred to Syria as a ``rogue nation.''

And if they do not get the message?

Then, said Fleischer: ``Syria needs to seriously ponder the implications of their actions in terms of harboring Iraqis who need not and should not be harbored. They should think seriously about their program to develop and to have chemical weapons. I think it's time to think through where they want their place to be in the world.''

Syria has denied it has chemical weapons or is harboring terrorists; U. S. officials said they have evidence that shows otherwise.

The Associated Press reported that Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to reporters at the State Department, warned, without making specific threats, that ``with respect to Syria, of course we will examine possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature as we move forward."

The fear among diplomatic experts is that the dispatching of the Iraqi regime in three weeks might give the U.S. little hesitation to do the same in Syria -- or elsewhere.

``If you think about what going into Syria would mean in the Middle East, it's totally absurd,'' said Eric Leaver, project associate at Washington's Institute for Policy Studies. ``We can't just say we're going to do everything by force.''

Others suggested it is more a unique opportunity to tame rogue nations.

``I don't think anyone is looking for a fight in Syria,'' said James Phillips, research fellow in Middle Eastern affairs at Washington's Heritage Foundation, ``but our leverage is at its maximum point.''

Michael Tierney, visiting assistant professor of government at the College of William & Mary, thought the media's suggestion that there could be military action against Syria was ``overblown.''

``A lot of people just don't have anything else to talk about,'' Tierney said.

At the same time, the analysts generally thought force could not be ruled out.

``If Syria continues on its present collision course and gets caught supporting terrorists or takes control of weapons of mass destruction, this could escalate rather quickly,'' said Phillips.

And the ripple effects could be enormous.

The image of the U.S. in other countries -- and to some extent among war critics at home -- has already been damaged.

Military action against Syria could further fracture American relationships with the Arab world, already roiled by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Iraq, though, is not the player in Mideast affairs that Syria is, and acting against Syria could stoke a more dire reaction in the region.

A U.S. strike could easily make Israel even more of an isolated target for terrorists, since some experts believe that Bush administration advisers have as one of their Middle East goals protecting Israel at all costs.

There is other potential fallout. The United Nations' clout has been reduced by the U.S. decision to ignore U.N. dissent over Iraq; a move into Syria without U.N. consent would be another blow to the world organization's stature.

Syria also has close ties to Russia and China, ties that could further strain U.S. relations with those countries.

And a strike against Syria could reinforce the idea that the U.S. has embarked on a new, pre-emptive foreign policy.

``The message would be we can get anything we want by bullying anyone,'' said Leaver.

World opinion about the U.S. action against Iraq is decidedly suspicious. ``A lot of people are watching closely to be sure there isn't empire-building going on,'' said Joseph Montville, senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Bush now needs to show he can be a diplomat. One way to do that is not to simply rush troops into countries whose policies he is unhappy with.

``The Bush administration is looking at each case pragmatically,'' said Tierney. ``There were all kinds of justifications for attacking Iraq. In Syria, we don't have that at the moment.''

Even so, the U.S. couldn't get U.N. Security Council approval to move against Iraq, and Syria is likely to be an even harder sell.

It was telling that Powell did not present detailed evidence against Syria Monday, as he had against Iraq before the war. Instead, the secretary of state provided no details about who may have entered Syria from Iraq, and he said he ``can't quantify how many might be slipping across the border.''

And, said Ivan Eland, director of the Oakland, Calif.-based Center on Peace & Liberty, it's an important distinction to make that Bush's policy is not some sharp turn in American policy, that he is being preventive not pre-emptive.

That way, the U.S. can say that since roughly the end of World War II, its military offensives have been designed to prevent another nation or terrorists from attacking.

``I don't think the administration is going to do anything [militarily] about Syria for a while; it has its hands full,'' said Eland. ``But I do think force is a possibility.''